Snap Judgment

Transcendental Moonshine

2008-06-05T16:42:00.000-07:00

A lovely, if elliptical, post by Charles Mudede via Wittgenstein on what might eternity might be. SJ has come to think that Wittgenstein's true value is how he makes the ordinary strange. But we wonder why Mudede feels anxiety about (the apparent) irruption of the transcendent here. Worrying if one is being mystical is the sure sign of spending too much time in the philosophy department, where the tendency is to hand over everything to science or Deep Thought. There are so many processes that are mysterious to SJ, starting with how these letters appear on this screen. Haggling about one of the ultimate puzzles, especially if tenure doesn't depend on it, is a waste of time. As is worries about reinventing Aristotelian scholasticism. SJ still pines for the day when philosophers thought that if it could be thought, it must exist.

Thoughts on WFB

2008-02-27T12:17:00.000-08:00

William F. Buckley, the closest the right got to having its own George Plimpton (1), is dead. SJ can see that the writer had fun with this, and was also surprised that WFB suffered from diabetes. That disease is a misery and needs its own publicity crew as cancer and AIDs have. We would not wish it on anyone and hope WFB spent his final days in what comfort can be wrested from it with friends and family around him.

Still, SJ cannot help but remark the fact that it is appropriate that the founding gadfly of modern conservatism excelled as a debater and a bon vivant, not as someone who thought. The late Norman Mailer pins the butterfly to the wheel here ; it would have been perhaps unseemly to quote Gore Vidal, who spared enough time for this fellow in his day. It is time to admit that modern conservatism is a sophism, more guerilla war than proper campaign, and not interesting as thinking. The greatest work of modern conservatism, Oakeshott's Experience and its Modes is as antitheoretical as work of philosophy can be imagined.

The one possible aspect of interest of modern conservatism, the tactics and strategy of the movement itself, were thought through by Gramsci in his Notebooks under the idea of hegemony, and have been elaborated upon by Stuart Hall, Ernesto LaClau, and Chantal Mouffe, all figures of the left. Like most religiously inflected thinking, modern conservatism reasons with a conclusion in mind, and indeed when it reaches an aporia, that conclusion is invoked to end debate. True thinking begins at the edge of the aporia, though this sort of work is not for the faint of heart, of head or people who aspire to be politicians (which may be redundant). In truth, modern conservatism's wispiness will be revealed or rather will dissipate into mists of time, and only occasionally held up like the Aztec sacrifice as an example of barbarism of a previous age.

Nevertheless, farewell and fare thee well!

(1) Close, but no cigar. Plimpton had no ideology and didn't need one because he simply identified the best that was being thought and said in his time. (And if you don't believe that, imagine modern letters without The Paris Review; if you can, then you need to do your homework.) Without ideology--colloquially understood in the US as a marketing plan--there would be no National Review. We do praise WFB for giving space and time for writers better than he, and it does appear that he helped trim away some of the more benighted atavisms indulged in by modern conservatives--the same atavisms that the jackboots of the Reich indulged in--but there is barely a shred of intellectual integrity around his legacy. A fun life, for sure, but one that we see as wasted mostly on triviality and the boring games of the wealthy.

A Book Longer Than Any He Could Imagine Writing

2007-11-17T00:00:00.000-08:00

Norman Mailer is dead. We will miss him muchly.

'To Tase' Is a Runner-Up for Word of the Year - Chronicle.com

2007-11-13T11:35:00.000-08:00

Somebody's second favorite new word is 'to tase'. What SJ is curious about is how a lame locution like "locavore" could beat it out. 'Tase' has all the earmarks of an instance classic: evokes a strong, specific experience, sounds great, and will likely be put to new uses, while the immediate reaction to 'locavore' is that it is a coinage of a newspaper style writer. One is a word, the other is a joke, which really isn't funny.

Where Fun Goes To Die

2007-07-16T14:36:00.000-07:00

The above has been the unofficial motto of the University of Chicago, one proudly embraced by its students. We at Snap Judgment have always been amused by this conceit and think it captures a certain essence of that particular university, together with the fact that a quarter of its student body majors in economics. Chicago graduates can be annoying, though, in their assumptions about how unique their college experience (so unique that the university is relatively unselective when it comes to students). And Rick Perlstein's essay, What's A Matter with College, shows why. For of course, all of M. Perlstein's examples of how college has changed come from his alma mater, the very same place where fun has been dying since 1890. Admittedly, this a provocation for an essay contest, so M. Perlstein's piece is essentially an essay question. But we still marvel that claims about the decline of the university, whether rightist (perfidious dens of decadent ideologues) or leftist (satanic mills of global transnationalism) take private liberal arts colleges as their exemplars, when most Americans go to good ol' U of State or State U. Perlstein's piece is a more liberal lament than those, one which SJ on certain days sympathizes with, but we believe that the change in the student experience does not have much to do with U of C or any U. for that matter.

In any case, we suspect the reason for such essays, M. Perlstein's included, has something to do with the fact that going to a small private college is something like volunteering for a cult; the main difference is that you can't go to private college indefinitely. When you visit as a graduate, the cult you are visiting is no longer the one you joined. What you are mourning--if you are mourning--is your own decline. Those Bright College Days aren't past for the college, but they are past for you.

They Really Did (and Do) Mean It

2007-06-26T15:03:00.000-07:00

SJ has always known that left liberalism endows one with mind-forg'd manacles that inevitably curtail imaginary sympathy, the sine qua non for adept cultural and literary criticism. And yet SJ has always found it hard to believe that members of the clique that once surrounded Partisan Review and then splintered into Commentary and other redoubts, have been called neoconservatives by themselves and others, and whose epigones dotted the White House truly believe that some sort of resurrected Victorianism, epitomized by laissez-faire economics, repressed social mores, and more recently, by America taking up the White Man's Burden of global empire, represents a plausible and moral path for the US, and those who stand in the way of that path are treasonous, at the very least. Yet Commentary has reissued from its archives a piece (.pdf) by Midge Decter mocking the actions of "literary lions" on the occasion of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and whose peroration clearly indicts the same lions (and American culture) as "decadent."

This claim is an old marxist charge, but means here, at least generously interpreted, the call for a reinvigorated Victorianism mentioned above. Nowadays, SJ thinks that Dinesh D'Souza really has shown the skull beneath the skin of these jeremiads. Due to the condition known as left liberalism. SJ can't imagine what they are thinking. Are they nostalgic for the workhouse? for the Black Hole of Calcutta? for naked resource extraction by any means necessary? for the Opium Wars (started by the British infusion of opium into China)? Or (this is what SJ suspects) are they a lot like people who when they imagine they have past lives are always someone famous? Someone who presumably would not have to care about the sheer terror, misery and hypocrisy of 19th century England, because they would be enforcing it? (SJ might go for 19th century Europe, with its political clashes and novels written for adults, but for these people, there will always be an England.)

Well, if they don't mean it, then why do they keep saying it? (Kudos for James Wolcott for his adept skewering of this crowd.)

They Did Say You Can Check Out

2007-06-21T14:45:00.000-07:00

A friend in Taiwan laments discovering that even on the Internets, radio from all over (Micronesia in this case) returns to familiar ground.

Not a nice suprise, indeed, but it does give SJ a chance to air long simmering vexation at Don Henley howling at the end that "You can never leave." The end rang hollow and obvious, then, but more so now after years of thinking theoretically about closure. Even worse, we feel that he says it because he knows he is supposed to say it. That's the 70s from certain perspective: no stately pleasure dome without a taste of the whip.

How German is It?

2007-06-20T16:14:00.002-07:00

If you are looking for folkloreschmuck*, you may find a Beschutzer of the Soul. The need for such things is obvious. Souls are always in need of schutzing.

*Such queer fortuities are why language poetry and observational comedy are held in low regard in some circles--since words themselves are doing the work.

Fons Et Origo

2006-10-09T12:00:00.000-07:00

"a friend of the devil is a friend of mine," as the pleased deceased wrote once.

see it, then be it.

and here is the word from another wise guy.

I guess we are all little technical now.

yours in the struggle,

Rob Crowe

Something More Political Than Usual

2005-11-14T16:33:00.000-08:00

Never the one to let a high-minded moment go without a jab worthy of a fraternity president, 43rd argued on Armistice Day (when the First War To Save Us Having to Have Any More Wars was ended at 11 on the 11 Day of the 11 Month, as SJ was taught long ago) that critics who want to investigate whether pre-war intellligence was "fixed" (which of course is a Britishism meaning "arranged" and nothing more pernicious than that) are hurting the morale of the troops. While SJ hesistates to speak for the troops, we suspect that like many people in the middle of things, they don't have much time or much care about how things began. (A mechanic is not normally interested in why you drove the car without oil.) But then it is just like a fraternity president to complain about criticism as hurting someone else when they feel its sting.

Why One Reads the NY Times

2005-10-11T15:30:00.000-07:00

"It was as if they had been hurled into another galaxy, a stubbled land of raccoon woods and Andy Griffith towns, Indian smoke shops and creased-faced cowboys in pickup trucks."

SJ feels protective about the New York Times--fondly known as NYT--in these days of partisan polarization. For newspapers are a prime source of fuel for the professional that Walter Benjamin identified as le flaneur, whose art is closely allied, if not the same as, the snap judgment. As the flaneur walks the street of the city, SJ treads the paths of newsprint, looking for a shock to our sensibility. And the NYT is the best newspaper for this practice, still full of nooks and crannies of reportage, rather than strokings for partisan sensibility. As much as SJ practices snark, we are not in the business of scoring points for one side or the other. And in the process of scoping targets, we of course find ourselves also distracted by the sometimes lyric digressions that the NYT allows its reporters, as in this long article about the New Orleans evacuees:

"If the evacuees had come from any other city in the country, it might not have mattered so much. But food became the topic of every day's conversation and the cause of many rolled eyes. The blander the food got, the fewer people showed up and the less they ate, and the more disillusioned the staff got."

All the news that fits is a grand idea, but SJ applauds the NYT's ability to find items that don't fit, in a time when nothing but fitting in, seemingly, counts.

Backing into the Saddle

2005-09-28T12:00:00.000-07:00

So SJ has been AWOL. Let us remind our fearless reader that snark bites both sender and receiver, and a well-cast evil eye also looks back at the beholder, with ill intent indeed. But SJ is back, with a production schedule of something like once a week. This is not that once. SJ however wanted to welcome a non-virtual friend into the blogfold--cause we are all sheep here, dontchayaknow--who has the temerity to snark about blogging in her blog, and that so far is the sole content of the blog. We look forward to further developments at Java Junco.

We'll add that Snap Judgement was intended to be a blog of many hands. Well, at least more than one. It may simply be that SJ has no friends. (We'll take that under advisement.) But if you want to know and know the secret handshake (i.e., who SJ is), come in and jump in the pool. (Sheep in a pool? Wouldn't they shrink...)

2005-09-08T14:29:00.000-07:00

No Law, No Order

James Wolcott laments not only the current season of L&O (the first edition) but the last few. We commiserate with him about past regulars, especially (and sadly), Jerry Orbach. But we here at Snap Judgment have an abiding passion (yes, we mean this word) for Sam Waterson's role as the Assistant DA. His irascible, yet melancholy Jack McCoy is worlds apart from the usual idealizations and demonizations of prosecutors. Indeed, though Waterson may seem almost crushingly sour in his role, his character is the best model of passionate liberalism we have in the mainstream media. Snap Judgment liked Michael Moriarty, but he did turn out to be something of a prima donna--exactly what a true public servant can never be.

We admire heartily Wolcott's work. He is the best media critic aside from John Leonard and Charles Mudede that we have. And we fear that SJ would not be taken seriously, since we now are rather addicted to L&O: Criminal Intent, which has the best portrayal of an intellectual of any TV series. We mean of course Vincent D'Onofrio as the tormented and cagily ticcish Det. Robert Goren. For this judgment, we are sure SJ will be confined to be particular irritating wing of the third level of the Aesthetic Inferno. We won't happily while away our time there, no doubt which will be taken up re-runs of fat shlub/cute wife sitcoms spawned in the wake of that show in which everybody loves somebody, but we remain devoted admirers of Assistant DA Jack McCoy. So there, James Wolcott!

2005-05-23T15:26:00.000-07:00

Savvy Political Advice

If we stop paying attention to politicians, they may go away. Though god knows they occasionally need help going. Sometimes a push would solve a lot of things that a contribution won't.

2005-04-19T16:33:00.000-07:00

The Decline of the West

SJ (RobCrowe at least) traffics in implausible theories of causation. Id est: why did the sun come up today? Because, once again, he couldn't find anything better do. Theory as joke, as it were. Well, SJ has come up with a doozy, but we think it is, in its way, unassailable. We all know that the US once had a golden age (exactly when is of some debate, but ...). SJ thinks that one could do worse than claiming 1945-1965 as that golden age. The dates coincide with a number of interesting events, but really this claim is just a premise for another claim. Because after every Golden Age, one must have a decline (id est, this doomy character's big book). SJ prefers to think of this period as a repose or perhaps decompose, but regardless. Well, what caused the decline of the US. Two things: the end of the Hollywood musical as a viable commercial genre and the onset of the personal computing industry.

2005-03-30T14:10:00.000-08:00

The Last Judgment (Here) on David Brooks

Via Wonkette (who pointed us at Reference Tone), SJ found this insightful critique of Our Mr. Brooks' latest column, about whether he will switch allegiances to the Washington Nationals from the New York Mets. Reference Tone detects an undertone in the column that would explain a lot about why Brooks' work seems to have little to do with reality, regardless of whether it is consensus-based hallucination or not. SJ's last judgment on the issue of OMB is that it looks there is more than one Queen of Denial.

2005-03-02T14:16:00.000-08:00

David Brooks: Still Needs to Get Out of the House

SJ has an obsession with Our Mr. Brooks, for reasons beyond our understanding. The guy is an intellectual lightweight whose only purpose seems to make liberals like SJ nostalgic about William Safire. (We started being nostalgic rather early, but that is because we are usually ahead of the curve.) But today Brooks committed a truly indecent act of journalism. Apparently, having separate checking accounts violates the sanctity of the family--which for Brooks is always mommy-daddy-me as Deleuze & Guattari charmingly put it-- and the family is realm that must be kept purified of the capitalist wolves outside or western civilization is in deep trouble.

Get out of here, as Elaine would say. What is Brooks' evidence for what makes a happy family? A story by Tolstoy. Wewonder if Our Mr. Brooks is aware that Tolstoy is not writing about most Russians, considering that they were mainly serfs. So OMB has mistaken fiction for sociology. SJ agrees with Brooks that Tolstoy is much better reading than sociology, but then we prefer Anna Karenina, which, hmm, concerns a woman who is unfulfilled in her marriage, as does Middlemarch and Madame Bovary. Matter of fact, quite a lot of Victorian fiction is about infidelity or unfulfilled women. We should check if these couples had separate banking accounts.

2005-01-04T14:46:00.000-08:00

Where's the Snap?

On holiday? How else to maintain a snarky attitude, since it burns the holder as much as the beholder. But now we're baaacck, as we were taught to say.

So, is SJ the only one who now puts aside the New York Times Review of Books when reading the Sunday Times solely to avoid having an aneurysm or a heart attack? SJ nearly called for fatwah on Walter Kirn last week for dissing Roz Chast, but thought better of it: Kirn is clearly out of it, or playing up his Montana address the better to mock his Manhattan colleagues. He's a professional outsider, not unlike the current editor, who made his splash by writing a biography of truly despicable person, Whittaker Chambers.

Eh bien, at least the NYTBR is more fun to read now. But not on Sunday.

2004-06-18T09:01:00.000-07:00

Dear: SJ has just linked to a dubiously partisan (read: in denial) political hack rag, but these revelations about Former Speaker of the House Gringrich are hilarious. Also, the article lead SJ to reminisce about the good ole' of '94. We are so unlucky in the new century. [Ed. SJ doesn't credit Arts Journal for this find].

2004-06-11T12:50:00.000-07:00

i'm thinking of picking up some chick-lit for the summer. my spiritual advisor and my therapist both assure me that this is "ok". but i SWEAR i can see the corners of their mouths twitching just a little bit. although what i am really hoping for is some good snark lit. bruce wagner except for the touching ending. wodehouse except by girls for girls. ideas?

i've been on too many airplanes lately and have been stuck in magazine land. i've read the latest harpers, business 2.0, fast company, and wired. i have nothing to report. really, i mean the fast company said somethinga bout design (yes, we know, we're all designers, thanks for pointing that out - just in case we didn't get it the first three hundred times) there were some pretty pictures in wired on the landscape of the open source movement. i'm sure there must have been something i enjoyed perusing, if not actually reading. what am i to talk about at cocktail parties if i cannot keep a simple few facts from the harpers review from leaking out of my skull?

snark alert: poetry bashing anyone? just read the first three paragraphs, they are grrrreat.

also, i'd like folks to vote on whether mckenzie wark (just google him, i'm too lazy to link for you) is a big loon or no. he is publishing "a hacker manifesto". have you heard this word, that all the bruce-sterling types are using, 'hacktivist'. i may really work myself up into a lather over this one. will ruminate further and get back to you.

2004-06-03T16:55:00.000-07:00

Actually, Only One Cheer Alan

Alan Wolfe reviews two books about Americanism, pro and con, on by our dear Mr. Brooks. While Wolfe's outing of the non-revelations of Revel is welcomed (two cheers indeed), he is far too sunny about Brooks. Snap Judgment in particular doesn't think that the grubby strivers are who somehow make this country great. More than not, there are lot of casualties in a gold rush, and we all know (from Sunday School), being lucky does not make you great. It just means that there is more work to do. I am surprised, too, because Wolfe has been discussing about religion can being meaningfully injected into academic and public culture, but he ignores how very materialist--get all the gold you can, animate ambition, etc--Brooks' case for American "greatness" is. Are we really simply about the bottom line? Or having the most toys when we die? If so, SJ utters a gulp for humanity.

2004-06-01T17:06:00.001-07:00

David Brooks: Out of His League, Again

Here isfurther evidence that Brooks is little better than a mouthpiece for the administration. His bleats about compassion are getting bleatier: wonder what is coming from behind?.

2004-06-01T17:06:00.000-07:00

It's Sheep We're Up Against

David Brooks column for the Times reads more and more as simply an apology for the current administration. But then SJ never believed that talk of conservative compassion was any more than a bleat vainly hiding what was beneath.

2004-04-29T10:16:00.000-07:00

Snap Judgment Says: George Packer should get a life. First, he writes pieces for Mother Jones about the Democrats needing to have a coherent foreign policy (hey buddy boy, in this age, a coherent foreign policy is fake one--cf. the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive Intervention), and now he bitches about political blogs (having confessed his addiction). Yo boy, get out yourself!

2004-04-27T17:15:00.000-07:00

Snap Judgment asks: What is going with The Believer's Snark Watch page? It hasn't been updated in a year. And we know that there has been snark since then. SJ's guess: The Believer is waiting for a Snark Attack. Well, what are we waiting for?

2004-04-27T17:00:00.000-07:00

This is the beginning of snap judgments. Let judging commence.

2004-04-27T16:30:00.000-07:00

Snap Judgment is not too happy with Blogger at the moment, since his most recent post has not been published, despite multiple clicks. Has SJ been snarked before he can snark? Here goes

Nota bene: Gender refers to the individual writer, not to SJ. Sometimes SJ will be female. (But probably always kind of femme).